Saturday, September 25, 2010
Here's the link again: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Watch that first. Lions should be allowed on Grounds. Well no, probably not, but now that you have some context as to my poorly contrived joke, what I really wanted to bring up is self-defense on grounds, most notably concealed carry. I was curious as to what people's thoughts and feelings are on the issue. There used to be a Students for Concealed Carry on Grounds, although the group is now defunct. If you don't really know much about Concealed Carry on Campus check out Students for Concealed Carry's site: http://www.concealedcampus.org/ . Also, another thing to think about is University of Virginia is a Public school and thus should be bound by the Second Amendment - like it is the First Amendment. So while Private Schools could, rightly in my opinion, ban guns on grounds, the argument that UVA can is somewhat more tenuous.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Quran burning controversy. Is Gainesville, Florida trying to suppress free speech and should we be angry?
Monday, September 06, 2010
In this Article, I will argue that this is a false dichotomy. Specifically, I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society's power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law."
I posted this because I felt as if we began to vaguely discuss the edges of this topic at the most recent CLR. The article is a little long, but really worth the read. I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this, and if you do agree with John Hasnas's argument, any thoughts on what should be done? Or what implications this has?
Friday, September 03, 2010
Thursday, September 02, 2010
"In the 10-page ruling, two of the Ninth Circuit judges held that the DEA agents did not violate Pineda-Moreno's constitutional rights. The judges ruled that because Pineda-Moreno's had not taken specific steps to exclude passersby from his driveway -- by installing a gate or posting no trespassing signs, for instance -- he could not claim reasonable privacy expectations.
The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the actions by the agents were comparable to the delivery of newspapers to the house, or the retrieval of a ball accidentally thrown under the vehicle by a neighbor."